Town Square

PLEASE VOTE "NO" ON "PROPOSITION 98" & "YES" ON PROP. 99"

PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT YOU VOTE IN THE "DIRECT PRIMARY
ELECTION" ON TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2008 & PLEASE MAKE SURE
THAT YOU READ THE FINE PRINT ON PROPOSITION 98 & 99
BEFORE VOTING.

BILLIONAIRE INVESTMENT MULTI-MOBILE HOME PARK OWNERS,
WHO ORIGINALLY PURCHASED MOBILE HOME PARKS AT PROPERTY
PRICES THAT WERE COMPENSATORY WITH CITY NEGOTIATED
RENT RATES & "PRODUCER PRICE INDEXED" RENT INCREASES
HAVE NOW FIGURED OUT A WAY TO BYPASS THIS CONTROL &
SET RIDICULOUSLY HIGH RESIDENTS RENT RATES DIRECTLY.
THE OWNERS & THEIR HIGH POWERED COURT ATTORNEYS
REALIZE THAT THIS WILL FORCE THE PARK RESIDENTS TO
MOVE, SINCE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY THE NEW LAND RENT
BENEATH THEIR OWNED HOMES & ALSO WILL ELIMINATE THE
POSSIBILITY OF THE RESIDENTS SELLING THEIR HOMES TO
FUTURE BUYERS BECAUSE OF THE HIGH LAND RENTS THE NEW
BUYERS WOULD BE FACED WITH. IN THIS MANNER, THE PARK
OWNERS CAN SYSTEMATICALLY REMOVE THE RESIDENTS FROM
THEIR HOMES AT VIRTUALLY NO COST TO THEM & HAVE THE
PROPERTY NOW VALUED AT TEN-FOLD THEIR ORIGINAL
PURCHASED PRICE TO SELL OR BUILD INVESTMENT
CONDOS/APARTMENTS.

THE PARK OWNERS ARE TRYING TO ELIMINATE CALIFORNIA
CITY RENT CONTROL LAWS THAT COVERS SENIOR MOBILE HOME
RESIDENTS SO THEY'VE SOMEHOW MANAGED A WAY TO ADD IT
TO "PROPOSITION 98" TITLED "EMINENT DOMAIN, LIMITS ON
GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY, INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT". OF COURSE THIS SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD THING.
NO ONE WANTS TO LOSE THEIR HOME BECAUSE SOME INVESTOR
WANT TO BUILD A SHOPPING MALL. THE PARK OWNERS ARE
SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON DECEPTIVE
ADVERTISEMENT SHOWING SAD SCENES OF CHILDREN BEING
EVICTED FROM THEIR HOMES, ETC. ACTUALLY "PROPOSITION
99" TITLED "EMINENT DOMAIN, LIMITS ON GOVERNMENT
ACQUISITION OF OWNER-OCCUPIED RESIDENCE, INITIATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT" DOES EXACTLY THE SAME THING
AS "PROPOSITION 98" & BARS USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO
ACQUIRE AN OWNER OCCUPIED RESIDENCE FOR CONVEYANCE TO
A PRIVATE PERSON OR BUSINESS. ONLY "PROP. 99" DOES
NOT ELIMINATE CITY RENT CONTROL LAWS & CITY
NEGOTIATIONS WITH MOBILE HOME PARK OWNERS.

SO PLEASE VOTE "NO" ON "PROPOSITION 98" & "YES" ON PROP. 99" &
THEN WE'LL HAVE THE BEST FOR EVERYONE THATS EFFECTED.
THIS WILL ALLOW US & MANY SENIOR CITIZENS ON FIXED
INCOMES TO REMAIN IN OUR OWNED HOMES ON RENTAL LANDS &
WILL ALSO NOT ALLOW PRIVATE RESIDENCE HOME OWNERS TO
BE REMOVED FROM THEIR HOMES BY THE SAME AVARICIOUS
PRIVATE INVESTORS & LOBBIED STATE OFFICIALS USING
"EMINENT DOMAIN" FOR THEIR GREEDY PURPOSES

Posted by Joshua
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on May 4, 2008 at 10:00 am

I definitely agree. Its the same old tune. the rich get richer and the poor get F***! It not just for those who are seniors, think about all the families with children who get removed from their homes because they can't afford their high mortgages, where do they go? They work hard, but just can't make it and those poor kids, what happens to them. We will have more homeless, and that is not something pleasanton wants to see.

Posted by WALTER A. JOHNSON
a resident of Vineyard Avenue
on May 7, 2008 at 1:39 am

YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!! IF MISLEADING PROPOSITION 98 PASS'ES, PLEASANTON CITY, OR FOR THAT MANNER, CALIFORNIA MUNICIPALITIES IN GENERAL WILL LOSE ALL LEGAL METHODS TO ASSIST IN SETTING RENTAL GUIDELINES LIMITS FOR APARTMENTS, CONDO'S, MANUFACTURED/MOBILE HOME PARKS, ETC. LANDLORDS WILL THEN HAVE A FREE HAND TO CHARGE UNREASONABLE HIGH RENTS WITH NO GOVERNMENT CONTROLS WHEN RENTAL UNITSS BECOME SCARCE. OR IN THE CASE OF SENIOR MANUFACTURED/MOBILE HOME PARKS, WHERE I RESIDE, ALL THE HOMES ARE OWNED BY THE RESIDENTS & ARE ACTUALLY NOT MOBILE, THE RENT IS CHARGED BY THE PARK OWNERS FOR THE LAND THE HOME REST ON & THE RESIDENT HOME OWNERS ARE AT THE MERCY OF THE PARK OWNERS TO CHARGE FAIR LAND RENTS & HAVE THE CITIES THERE TO BACK THEM UP & FAIRLY MONITOR THE NEGOTIATING PROCESS.

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on May 7, 2008 at 10:55 am

No on both. They are both bad laws.

Prop 99 adds this amendment to the State Constitution:
"Owner-occupied residence" means real property that is improved with a single-family residence such as a detached home, condominium, or townhouse and that is the owner or owners' principal place of residence for at least one year prior to the State or local government's initial written offer to purchase the property.

So what? If you haven't owned your home a full year before the government sends an offer you aren't protected?

Another consideration to make is that people who lose their homes because of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, they are most likely entering the rental market. So the rental market will get hot and landlords will see an opportunity to raise rents and it will be even harder for the people who end up losing their home... and for the people who never had a home and are just renting. Removing government regulation isn't necessarily good.

Don't miss out on the discussion!Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name:*

Select your neighborhood or school community:*

Comment:*

Verification code:* Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.